The Intro...

Hello fellow planners and cyburbanites. I can't think of any other place I would rather be on a Sunday morning than here on the message board. This is actually my first ever posting, I just happened to stumble across this website yesterday and thought I'd stick around. I'm an urban & regional planning grad. student at Eastern Washington University, I also work for the Spokane Historic Preservation Office as a project planner. I am curious to what you guys think (in general) of the relationship between planning and historic preservation. Any comments? I'm thinking of pursuing more of a histo presto route, career wise, versus a more general urban planning one. Later...

Welcome. I have a strong interest in preservation, as do many of us. In a small town, the planner does everything. We just completed a survey of the older parts of town, and became a Certified Local Government last year. My problem is finding motivated persons to serve on the preservation board.

Thanx for the replies. As to Mike's response, that's great you are now a CLG and I would add that finding qualified people to serve on the board seems to always be an issue, it is a minor issue for us right now. And Jeff, I did not know Spokane was always on Unsolved Mysteries. I'm a newbie to the town so I don't have an answer to it, but after being here for a fairly short amount of time it does not surprise me--the city has somewhat of a "mysterious" feel to it.

Historic preservation is very important in keeping cultural monuments around for future generations. However, the biggest problem I have with most preservation groups is, just because it is old doesn’t make it historical.

So basically what I am saying is that preservation is great and there is a thin line between too much and too little. Especialy when it comes to houses. People have to actually live in these places, sometimes they are denied a paint color or a porch because it is not “historically” correct and I find this too much of a regulation. Also I have seen downtown buildings sit vacant because they are historical and no one wants to touch it because it would cost too much money to meet the historical guidelines. So instead they go out to the ‘burbs and gets “build to suit” and the vacant historical building continues to rot.

Hey H. Yeah, a lot of people share your viewpoints towards preservation. There is a fine line between what I call "hysterical" preservation versus "historical" preservation. There are, however, many benefits of historic preservation that go beyond preserving/saving cultural heritage. As far as regulations go, for better or worse, guidelines are needed. Preservationists, forward thinking ones at least, are flexible and easy to work with though. Anyway, thanks for the welcome!

Combine Mike and H's comments to get mine. We try to balance historic preservation on the one hand with the need to adapt on the other hand. It is a tricky situation where we sometimes win; sometimes lose.

Remember this motto to live by: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO- HOO what a ride!'"

"Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund

Originally posted by RichmondJake ZG - the last time I checked Spirit Lake was in Idaho. Was it moved from Washington before I got here?

No it is in Iowa.....

“As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau